Appeal No. 97-1438 Application 08/339,142 slidable adjustment relative to an end cross member 11 of the main frame B. In our opinion, the portable limb support device of appellants’ claim 1 would not have been obvious based upon the combined teachings of Lipson and Barnes. The evidence of obviousness simply does not provide a suggestion for the claimed portable limb support device comprising two plastic- fabricated halves connected directly to one another by a notched load bearing cam surface and cam follower arrangement, allowing repositioning of the upper half and locking thereof in at least one of an inclined, declined, and leveled position. At best, the Barnes document would have been suggestive of the addition of a head supporting frame C for use with the arm or leg support of Lipson. As to the Simmons (strap 28), Lechner (cushion 70), and Meals (blanket support frame 18) references, we find that these documents do not overcome the noted deficiency of the Lipson patent, in particular. Since the evidence proffered by the examiner does not support a conclusion of obviousness, the respective rejections of the claims on appeal must be reversed. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007